Thread

1. Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?

   Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> — 2001-02-05T22:56:12Z

   "Nic Ferrier" wrote:
     >- the postmaster was being started without nohup
    
   If postmaster is being started by init, it should not need nohup, because
   init never exits and postmaster is not going to get shutdown unexpectedly.
   
   nohup has a performance cost, in that (at least on Linux) it automatically
   nices (lowers the priority of) the process.  You may not want the
   priority lowered...
   
   -- 
   Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
   Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
   PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47  6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
   GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
                    ========================================
        "Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye 
         everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come 
         in. Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and 
         mighty, the LORD mighty in battle."           
                                      Psalms 24:7,8 
   
   
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2001-02-06T00:39:24Z

   "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
   > "Nic Ferrier" wrote:
   >>>> - the postmaster was being started without nohup
    
   > If postmaster is being started by init, it should not need nohup, because
   > init never exits and postmaster is not going to get shutdown unexpectedly.
   
   On the other hand, when pg_ctl is invoked by hand, it probably is a bug
   that it fails to use nohup.  Perhaps this is a reason why pg_ctl should
   not be made into a substitute for a startup script?
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?

   Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> — 2001-02-06T03:39:46Z

   > > If postmaster is being started by init, it should not need nohup, because
   > > init never exits and postmaster is not going to get shutdown unexpectedly.
   > 
   > On the other hand, when pg_ctl is invoked by hand, it probably is a bug
   > that it fails to use nohup.  Perhaps this is a reason why pg_ctl should
   > not be made into a substitute for a startup script?
   
   If pg_ctl unconditionally use nohup, it might be a performance penalty
   as Oliver mentioned.
   
   > nohup has a performance cost, in that (at least on Linux) it automatically
   > nices (lowers the priority of) the process.  You may not want the
   > priority lowered...
   
   Moreover if postmaster detaches itself to be a deamon, nohup is not
   necessary at all.
   
   BTW, for the startup script, I don't think we need to use pg_ctl.
   Invoking postmaster directry seems enough for me. The only reason for
   using pg_ctl to start postmaster is waiting for postmaster up and
   running. In most cases the time to recover DB would not be so
   long. And if the recovery took too long time, we would not want to be
   blocked in the middle of the boot sequence anyway.
   
   Comments?
   --
   Tatsuo Ishii
   
   

4. Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-02-06T16:43:16Z

   Tatsuo Ishii writes:
   
   > Moreover if postmaster detaches itself to be a deamon, nohup is not
   > necessary at all.
   
   Right.  Scrap that thought then.
   
   > BTW, for the startup script, I don't think we need to use pg_ctl.
   > Invoking postmaster directry seems enough for me. The only reason for
   > using pg_ctl to start postmaster is waiting for postmaster up and
   > running.
   
   Waiting for the postmaster to start up is really only useful when you
   start it interactively, either during development, or if you need to
   repair a problem.  In either of these cases you might as well (and
   probably rather should) look at the log output yourself, i.e., just use
   'postmaster'.
   
   > In most cases the time to recover DB would not be so
   > long. And if the recovery took too long time, we would not want to be
   > blocked in the middle of the boot sequence anyway.
   
   Exactly.  No waiting on startup by default then?
   
   -- 
   Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/